Pittsburg Power Plant Fact Sheet

NPDES Permit No. CA0004880

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION

1515 CLAY STREET, SUITE 1400

OAKLAND, CA 94612

(510) 622 – 2300 à Fax: (510) 622 - 2460

FACT SHEET

for

NPDES PERMIT and WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS for

MIRANT DELTA LLC

PITTSBURG POWER PLANT

PITTSBURG, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

NPDES Permit No. CA0004880

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Written Comments

·  Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this draft permit.

·  Comments should be submitted to the Regional Board no later than 5:00 Pp.m. on May 13, 2002.

·  Send to ATTN: Judy C. Huang

Public Hearing

·  The draft permit will be considered for adoption by the Board at a public hearing during the Board’s regular monthly meeting at: Elihu Harris State Office Building, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA; 1st floor Auditorium.

·  This meeting will be held on: June 19, 2002, starting at 9:00 am.

Additional Information

·  For additional information about this matter, interested persons should contact Regional Board staff member: Ms. Judy C. Huang, Phone: (510) 622-2363; email:

This Fact Sheet contains information regarding an application for waste discharge requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Mirant Delta LLC for discharges from the Pittsburg Power Plant. The Fact Sheet describes the factual, legal, and methodological basis for the proposed permit and provides supporting documentation to explain the rationale and assumptions used in deriving the limits.

I.  INTRODUCTION

Mirant Delta LLC (hereinafter the Discharger) applied to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, (hereinafter the Board) for reissuance of its NPDES permit for discharge of pollutants from Pittsburg Power Plant into State Waters.

The Discharger owns and operates the Pittsburg Power Plant, located at 969 696 West 10th Street, Pittsburg, Contra Costa County.

Treated wastewater is discharged into Suisun Bay, and Willow Creek, all Waters of the State and United States. The wastewater, is discharged through 11 shoreline outfalls. These discharge points are as follows:

Outfall Number / Discharge Description / Latitude / Longitude / Receiving Water /
E-001 / Once-Through Cooling Water Discharge (Units 1-through 7 6) Once-Through Cooling Water Discharge / 38O02’30” / 121O53’30” / Suisun Bay
E-002 / Yard Storm Drain (Discharge Eliminated)
E-003 / Stormwater runoff from yard drains in around Fuel Oil Tanks 8 through 14 during peak storm flows / 38O02’15” / 121O54’00” / Willow Creek
E-004 / Stormwater runoff from yard drains around Fuel Oil Tank 6 16 during peak storm flows / 38O01’45” / 121O54’00” / Willow Creek
E-005A / Stormwater runoff from yard drains near Cooling Water Intake / 38O02’30” / 121O53’30” / Suisun Bay
E-005B / Stormwater runoff from yard drains near Cooling Water Intake / 38O02’30” / 121O53’45” / Suisun Bay
E-006 / Unit 7 Cooling Tower Blowdown alternate Alternate discharge Discharge locationLocation / 38O02’15” / 121O54’15” / Willow Creek
E-007 / Stormwater runoff from yard drains around area southwest of Warehouse and portions of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) switchyard / 38O02’15” / 121O54’00” / Willow Creek
E-008 / Stormwater runoff from yard drains around area west of Warehouse / 38O02’15” / 121O54’00” / Willow Creek
E-009 / Stormwater runoff from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) switchyard and adjacent Mirant property / 38O02’15” / 121O54’00” / Willow Creek
E-010 / Stormwater runoff from entrance road area between Fuel Oil Tanks 14 and 15 / 38O02’00” / 121O54’00” / Willow Creek
E-011 / Stormwater runoff from Pump Station area near Fuel Oil Tank 16 / 38O02’00” / 121O54’00” / Willow Creek

Discharge Description and volume: The Report of Waste Discharge describes the discharge as follows:

Outfall Number / Contributory Waste Stream / Treatment Description / Annual Average Flow (MGD) / Annual Maximum Flow (MGD) /
E-001 / Once-Through Cooling Water Discharge (Units 1-6) / Screening, Shock Chlorination (and Dechlorination If if Requiredrequired.) / 100658 / 1,070
A. / Intake Screen Wash / No TreatmentScreening / 0.15 / 7.27
B. / Water Pretreatment System / Sedimentation/Microstraining / 0.12 / 0.17
Reverse Osmosis Building Drains / No Treatment / 0.004
C. / Reverse Osmosis Reject / No TreatmentMicrostraining / 0.28 / 0.360
D. / Boilers 1 through 6 Blowdown / Microstraining (filtration) / 0.15 / 0.300
E. / Ion Exchange Regeneration Waste[1] / Neutralization / 0.07 / 0.648
F. / Settling Pond Effluent From from Fireside/Air Preheater Washes (Boilers 1 through 7) / pH Adjustment
Sedimentation
Filtration / 0.0027 / 0.036
G. / Oil-Water Separator Effluent From from Yard yard and Building building Stormwater stormwater Runoffrunoff / Oil-Water Separation/ Sedimentation / 0.060.3 / 0.576
H. / Unit 7 Cooling Tower Blowdown / No TreatmentChlorination/Anti-scalant / 17 / 17.0
I. / Chemical Metal Cleaning Waste Pond Effluent (Boilers 1 through 7) / Sedimentation/Neutralization/Microstraining / 0.0027 / 0.047
E-002 / No longer used Yard Storm Drain (Discharge Eliminated)
E-003 / Stormwater runoff from yard drains in around Fuel Oil Tanks 8 through 14 during peak storm Flowsflows / Best Management Practices / 0.048 / -
E-004 / Stormwater Runoff runoff From from Yard yard Drains drains In around Fuel Oil Tank 6 16 During during Peak peak Storm storm Flowsflows / Best Management Practices / 0.005 / -
E-005 / Stormwater Runoff runoff From Yard yard Drains drains Near near Cooling Water Intake / Best Management Practices / 0.0002 / -
E-006 / Unit 7 Cooling Tower Blowdown Alternate Discharge Location / Chlorination/Anti-scalantNo Treatment / 17No Estimate / -
E-007 / Stormwater Runoff runoff From from Yard yard Drains drains in around Area area Southwest southwest of Warehouse and portions of the PG&E switchyard / Best Management Practices / No Estimate / -
E-008 / Stormwater Runoff runoff From from Yard yard Drains drains in around Area area West west of Warehouse / Best Management Practices / No Estimate / -
E-009 / Stormwater Runoff runoff From from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E S) Switchyard and adjacent Mirant property.the Discharger’s Fuel Tanks Yard / Best Management Practices / No Estimate / -
E-010 / Stormwater Runoff runoff From from Entrance entrance Road road Area area Between between Fuel Oil Tanks 14 and 15 / Best Management PracticesNo Treatment / No Estimate / -
E-011 / Stormwater runoff From from Pump Station Area area Near near Fuel Oil Tank 16 / Best Management PracticesNo Treatment / No Estimate / -

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter the U.S. EPA) and the Board have classified Pittsburg Power Plant as a major Discharger.

The receiving waters for the subject discharges are the waters of Suisun Bay and are tidally tidally-influenced waters of the San Francisco Bay estuary. This Order uses the CTR basis for establishing the salinity characteristics (i.e., fresh water vs. marine water) of the receiving water for all WQO/WQC because the CTR basis for salinity is more scientifically justified than the Basin Plan salinity basis. Therefore, the freshwater objectives apply to discharges to waters with salinities lower than 1 parts per thousand (ppt) at least 95 percent of the time, while marine (saltwater) objectives apply to discharges to waters with salinities greater than 10 ppt at least 95 percent of the time in a normal water year. For discharges to waters with salinities in between these two categories, or to tidally influenced fresh waters that support estuarine beneficial uses, effluent limitations shall be the lower of the marine or freshwater effluent limitation, based on ambient hardness, for each substance. Salinity data indicate that the receiving waters for the subject discharge are estuarine according to both the Basin Plan and CTR definition of salinity.

II.  DESCRIPTION OF EFFLUENT

Board Order Nos. 94-05695-225 (hereinafter the Previous Order) presently regulates the discharge from the power plant. Based on the last three-year effluent data collected up to March 2001, the Discharger’s combined Unit 1 through 7 treated wastewater has the following characteristics:

Table A. Summary of Combined Unit 1 through 7 Effluent Data

Constituent / Maximum Observed
Cooling Water Temperature (OF) / 106
Arsenic (mg/l) / 11
Cadmium (mg/l) / 1.2
Chromium (mg/l) / 23
Copper (mg/l) / 60
Lead (mg/l) / 6.3
Mercury (mg/l) / 0.39
Nickel (mg/l) / 37
Silver (mg/l) / 111.1
Zinc (mg/l) / 360

No toxic pollutant data for the existing discharges E-002 003 through E-011 are currently available.: discharge E002 was eliminated.

III.  GENERAL RATIONALE

The following documents are the bases for the requirements contained in the proposed Order, and are referred to under the specific rationale section of this Fact Sheet.

·  Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (hereinafter the CWA).

·  Federal Code of Regulations, Title 40 - Protection of Environment, Chapter 1, Environmental Protection Agency, Subchapter D, Water Programs, Parts 122-129, and 423 (hereinafter referred to as 40 CFR specific part number).

·  Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, adopted by the Board on June 21, 1995 (hereinafter the Basin Plan). The California State Water Resources Control Board (hereinafter the State Board) approved the Basin Plan on July 20, 1995 and by California State Office of Administrative Law approved it on November 13, 1995. The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses and contains water quality objectives (WQOs) for waters of the State, including Suisun Bay.

·  California Toxics Rules, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 97, May 18, 2000 (hereinafter the CTR).

·  National Toxics Rules 57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992, as amended (hereinafter the NTR).

·  State Board’s Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, May 1, 2000 (hereinafter the State Implementation Policy, or SIP).

·  Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA 440/5-86-001, 1986.

·  Water Quality Control Plan for control of Temperature in the Coastal Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (hereinafter the Thermal Plan) adopted by the State Board on September 18, 1975.

IV.  SPECIFIC RATIONALE

Several specific factors affecting the development of limitations and requirements in the proposed Order are discussed as follows:

1.  Recent Plant Performance

Section 402(o) of CWA and 40 CFR 122.44(l) require that water-quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) in re-issued permits is are at least as stringent as in the previous permit. SIP specifies that interim effluent limitations must be based on current treatment facility performance or on existing permit limitations whichever is more stringent. In determining what constitutes “recent plant performance”, best professional judgment (BPJ) was used. Effluent monitoring data collected over the last three years are considered representative of the recent plant performance.

2.  Impaired Water Bodies in 303(d) List

The U.S. EPA Region 9 office approved the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies on May 12, 1999. The list was prepared in accordance with section 303(d) of the CWA to identify specific water bodies where water quality standards are not expected to be met after implementation of technology-based effluent limitations on point sources. Suisun Bay is listed for chlordane, copper, DDT, diazinon, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan compounds, mercury, nickel, PCBs, (including dioxin-like PCBs), and selenium.

The SIP requires final effluent limits for all 303(d)-listed pollutants to be based on total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and wasteload allocation (WLA) results. The SIP and federal regulations also require that final concentration limits be included for all pollutants with reasonable potential (RP). The SIP requires that where the Discharger has demonstrated infeasibility to meet the final limits, interim concentration limits and performance-based mass limits for bioaccumulative pollutants, be established in the permit with a compliance schedule in effect until final effluent limits are adopted. The SIP also requires the inclusion of appropriate provisions for waste minimization and source control.

3.  State Thermal Plan and Clean Water Act Section 316(a)

On September 18, 1975, the State Board adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (Thermal Plan). The Thermal Plan contains objectives governing cooling water discharges. The Thermal Plan Provides provides different and specific numeric and narrative water quality objectives for “new” and “existing” discharges of heat. The Thermal Plan applies to discharges E-001 and E-006.

Discharges from Pittsburg Power Plant are considered existing discharges within the meaning of the Thermal Plan. The Thermal Plan requires the following for existing thermal waste discharges:

·  The maximum temperature of the thermal waste shall not exceed the natural receiving water temperature by more than 20OF.

·  Thermal waste discharges either individually or combined with other discharges shall not create a zone, defined by water temperatures of more than 1OF above natural receiving water temperature, which exceeds 25 percent of the cross-sectional area of a main river channel at any point.

·  No discharge shall cause a surface water temperature rise greater than 4OF above the natural temperature of the receiving waters at any time or place.

·  The maximum temperature of thermal waste discharges shall not exceed 86OF.

The Thermal Plan provides that with the concurrence from the State Board, Regional Boards may grant exceptions to the Specific Water Quality Objectives of the Thermal Plan in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 316(a) (33 U.S.C. Section 1326) and applicable federal regulations. The Discharger has requested that the Board to consider and grant an exception to the DT 4OF, DT 20OF, and the 86 OF requirements for discharge E-001.

Clean Water Act Section 316(a) provides that an exception will be granted if the Discharger can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Regional Board, that an effluent limitation for heat is more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is to be made. If the exception is granted, the Regional Board will adopt an alternative effluent limitation, taking into account the interaction off the heat component of the discharge with other pollutants, that will protect the receiving water.

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 125.73(a) addresses the implementation of Clean Water Act Section 316(a) exception. It states that “Thermal discharge effluent limitations or standards established in permits may be less stringent than those required by applicable standards and limitations if the discharger demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that such effluent limitations are more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made. This demonstration must show that the alternative effluent limitation desired by the discharger, considering the cumulative impact of its thermal discharge together with all other significant impacts on the species affected, will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is to be made.”